Maya Forstater

If we didn't have a word to denote the class of people with the potential to get pregnant and the class of people with the potential to impregnate them we'd have to invent them...

infertile women or women with no uterus do not have the potential to get pregnant, we are back at square one with this now (well ok more like square 2)

No we are really not. Being fertile is not a necessary condition of being male or female. Post-menopausal women for example are not a third sex, or lesser or part women.

You are carving out exceptions on an ad-hoc basis based on your own distaste for the regressive definition of womanhood that you are promoting (eg as being "sufficiently like the thing that can make eggs).

your definition necessarily involves grey areas and subjective judgement because you refuse - rightly - to go ahead and say that women must be producing eggs etc. however, since you are willing to hold a subjective grey area definition, there is now a broader question that arises

that is: in this case as in almost every case, definitions, unlike facts, are not objective truths about the universes but constructions that exist only to be used by human beings. so we must ask, what is the definition of "woman" FOR?

that being the case, we can construct it considering the pros and cons of various options, as we do in many other cases. i believe you are not considering the harmful consequences that your biologically-based definition has for trans folks.

Currently, trans women face specific discrimination *as women*. They face misogyny, magnified tenfold. For example, trans women face more domestic violence than trans men do AND more than cis women do http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Intimate-Partner-Violence-and-Sexual-Abuse-among-LGBT-People.pdf …